The result of disallowance under § 502(b)(2) “will be to insure you to definitely loan providers other than [the new creditor carrying this new education loan] located the fair share of your estate
9 Come across § 346.step 1 [ College loans ] § 158.2 Figuratively speaking. Find, age.grams., Leeper v. Pennsylvania Higher Educ. Direction Institution, forty-two F.three dimensional 98 (three-dimensional Cir. 1995) (Using Bruning v. All of us, 376 U.S. 358, 84 S. Ct. 906, eleven L. Ed. 2d 772 (1964), unmatured postpetition notice to the a nondischargeable education loan isn’t deductible and you may survives launch within the a part 13 case.); During the lso are Hamilton, 179 B.R. 749 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 1995) (Equilibrium away from student loan could be nondischargeable within achievement of money not as much as Part 13 package in spite of one Company from Degree were unsuccessful so you can prompt document an evidence of claim plus the borrower registered a proof of claim on the behalf of the fresh new Agency inside an count disputed by the Service.); Ridder v. Higher Lakes Higher Educ. Corp. (During the re also Ridder), 171 B.R. 345, 346–47 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 1994) (“Even in the event says for postpetition attract is disallowed during case of bankruptcy, just after bankruptcy the newest manager out of a great nondischargeable loans may gather out of the fresh new borrower individually. Bruning v. United states, 376 You.S. 358, 84 S. Ct. 906, 11 L. Ed. 2d 772 (1964). . . . Since debt wasn’t discharged, Great Lakes get collect this new postpetition attract from [the new borrower] in person. . . . That High Lakes’ claim for postpetition interest will have been disallowed has nothing to do with whether or not postpetition desire try dischargeable.”); In the re also Shelbayah, 165 B.Roentgen. 332 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1994) (Unmatured postpetition attract towards the a student-based loan isn’t a permitted claim around § 502(b)(2), and such as for example interest will continue to accrue inside Chapter 13 circumstances. ).
Most of the unmatured postpetition notice can get a similar nondischargeable character because the underlying student loan around § 1328(a)
10 See lower than in this point and discover §§ 155.dos [ Long-Label Bills ] § 88.9 A lot of time-Term Expenses, 159.1 [ A proposition: Simpler Laws and regulations having Class out-of Unsecured States ] § A suggestion: Convenient Guidelines for Classification off Unsecured Claims and you can 346.step one [ College loans ] § 158.2 Figuratively speaking. Select, elizabeth.g., During the re Williams, 253 B.R. 220, 232 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 2000) (“So it legal cannot establish Part 13 preparations that provide for brand new payment of interest in order to education loan loan providers, although not to other unsecured financial institutions.”); Inside lso are Shelbayah, 165 B.R. 332, 337 (Bankr. Letter.D. Ga. 1994) (Unmatured postpetition desire towards a student-based loan isn’t deductible in a chapter 13 circumstances around § 502(b)(2), particularly appeal continues to accrue in the Section 13 circumstances, while https://badcreditloanshelp.net/payday-loans-wi/west-allis/ the accruing focus has got the same nondischargeable profile because the underlying student loan lower than § 1328(a). ”). Accord Leeper v. Pennsylvania Large Educ. Advice Institution, forty two F.three-dimensional 98 (three-dimensional Cir. 1995); Into the re Hamilton, 179 B.R. 749 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 1995); Ridder v. Higher Ponds High Educ. Corp. (In the re also Ridder), 171 B.R. 345 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 1994).
11 Within the lso are Boggan, 125 B.R. 533 (Bankr. Letter.D. Ill. 1991). Agreement In lso are Gregg, 179 B.Roentgen. 828, 830 (Bankr. Elizabeth.D. Tex. 1995) (Debtor can also be on their own categorize around three college loans getting commission entirely in which most other unsecured claim people could well be paid off simply .74%. “All of the college loans in this case try nondischargeable below eleven U.S.C. § 523. Ergo, yet another class for these states does not unfairly discriminate up against others unsecured creditors.”). Come across along with When you look at the re Dillon-Bader, 131 B.R. 463 (Bankr. D. Kan. 1991) (In the perspective of good-trust objection so you’re able to confirmation, this is simply not incorrect to own a part 13 debtor in order to on their own identify Restore financing getting a hundred% commission while paying most other unsecured claim proprietors ten% since Restore financing must be paid-in complete pursuant in order to 42 You.S.C. § 294f(g).).